Re: wcard discussions in Minneapolis

[Rob Austein <sra@isc.org>]

At Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:32:30 +0100 (BST), Geoffrey Sisson wrote:
> 
> Rob Austein <sra@isc.org> writes:
> 
> > I propose that we just leave this broken stuff broken.
> 
> If so, would it be desirable to change -wcard-clarify (I'm guessing it
> would stay "-clarify") to explicitly state that the behaviour for
> "* DNAME" and "* NS" is undefined?  I'm trying to see this from the
> viewpoint of an implementor, who may have difficulty reading between
> the lines of the current language.

Yes.

To be clear (since apparently my previous message was not):

- I have no problem with explictly documenting the behavior of these
  cases as undefined, and agree that it would be useful to do so.

- What I object to is changing the specifications in ways that require
  implementation of new special handling rules.  In particular, I
  object to the proposed changes to the DNSSEC signing algorithm.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>